Case law

State v. Loza

71 Ohio St. 3d 61 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1994

Fisher is clearly outside the holding of Crane . … Greene was a qualified expert document examiner.

State v. Brooks

75 Ohio St. 3d 148 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1996

. {¶ 2} Upon arriving in Akron, some of the men established a base of operations at the apartment of Toni Massingill. … By giving an unsworn statement, a defendant trades immunity from cross-examination for a limiting jury instruction.

Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion)

148 Ohio St. 3d 483 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 25, 2016

“[E]nactments of the General Assembly [are] constitutional unless such enactments are clearly unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” State ex rel. Dickman v. … The action for negligence, upon which today’s medical malpractice actions are founded, was well-established in the common law (trespass of the case).

State v. Were

118 Ohio St. 3d 448 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2008

A trial court’s finding of no discriminatory intent will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. Hernandez (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 583 , 589 N.E.2d 1310 , following Hernandez v. … Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 ] test, but the Judge asked her and got her qualified.

State v. Berry

80 Ohio St. 3d 371 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1997

Although he clearly understands that abandoning his legal remedies will lead to his death, he does not understand that pursuing them may mean freedom, which he says he prefers to death. … Pearson is certainly qualified, her experience in forensic matters is limited. Dr. Pearson has been a self-employed clinical psychologist since 1988.

State v. Eley

77 Ohio St. 3d 174 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1996

Id., syllabus. 17  In this case, Belinky, as county coroner, was clearly qualified to testify as an expert when he observed the autopsy performed on the victim. … None of these statements constituted plain error, since they were clearly not outcome-determinative. Long, supra.

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Baker Ross

2026 Ohio 510 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2026

The “exceptional circumstances” of this case thus qualify as capable of repetition, yet evading review. … Substantively, the circumstances warranting a prior restraint must be “imperative” and it must “appear[] clearly in the record” both that the “defendant’s right to a fair trial will be jeopardized” and that “there is no other

State v. Willan

136 Ohio St. 3d 222 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2013

We accepted jurisdiction over the state’s cross-appeal to consider the following proposition of law: “R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a) establishes a mandatory 10-year sentence where a defendant is found guilty of a corrupt activity … Under the rule, ambiguity in a criminal statute is construed strictly so as to apply the statute only to conduct that is clearly proscribed. United States v.

Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County

8 Ohio St. (N.S.) 333 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1858

of the amendatory act of April 14,1857, under which the proceedings complained of in this case were had, and the provisions of which, so far as they have any bearing upon the questions under consideration, are in no way qualified … The first clause of this section, guaranteeing the inviolability of private property except as subservient to the public welfare, clearly prohibits the taking of private property for private use, without the owner’s consent

Administratrix de bonis non v. Administrator of Card

2 Ohio St. (N.S.) 431 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1853

A majority of the court are clearly of opinion it was not. In Winship v. … But it clearly introduced no new rule, as the cases cited abundantly show.

State v. Myers

97 Ohio St. 3d 335 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2002

The state wished to have these further tests performed by the “most qualified” expert in the country, who worked out of California. … “Evidence relating to the facts attendant to the offense * * * is clearly admissible during the guilt phase.” State v.

State ex rel. Thomas v. McGinty (Slip Opinion)

164 Ohio St. 3d 167 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2020

To be entitled to their requested writ of prohibition, appellants must establish that (1) Judge McGinty exercised or is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying … See Black’s Law Dictionary at 1449 (defining “privilege” as a “special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty”).

State v. Myers

97 Ohio St. 3d 335 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2002

The state wished to have these further tests performed by the “most qualified” expert in the country, who worked out of California. … “Evidence relating to the facts attendant to the offense * * * is clearly admissible during the guilt phase.” State v.

State v. Cepec (Slip Opinion)

149 Ohio St. 3d 438 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2016

If the witness is of unsound mind or under the age of ten, the proponent of the witness bears the burden to establish certain indicia of competency. State v. … “[Djebatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 146.

State v. Schaeffer

96 Ohio St. (N.S.) 215 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1917

At first blush this would seem to sustain the contention of the defendant in error, but the proposition is qualified by the language, “where the evidence justifies it.” … Hence the rule of law is well established that before such omission can be used as the basis of a proceeding in error, the court’s attention should be challenged thereto.

State v. Blankenship (Slip Opinion)

145 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2015

Chapter 2950, certain violations of R.C. 2907.04 qualify as “sexually oriented offenses.” R.C. 2950.01(A)(2) and (3). A “sex offender” is a person who is convicted of “any sexually oriented offense.” … It clearly does not. {¶ 40} In my view, the Eighth Amendment does not apply to this case, because I believe that sex offender registration in Ohio is a civil, nonpunitive requirement.

Lunn v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

149 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2016

The BTA stated that “[a]bsent an affirmative demonstration such sale is not a qualifying sale for tax valuation purposes, we find the existing record demonstrates that the transaction was recent, arm’s-length, and constitutes … That is a better indication of value than the auditor’s appraisal, which clearly does not take account of the fact that no one is willing to spend more than $33,000 to purchase the property. {¶ 26} Accordingly,

State v. Roe

41 Ohio St. 3d 18 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1989

In addition, the use of voter registration lists to select qualified jurors has consistently been upheld by this court. See State v. … This argument is without merit, as the photographs were clearly relevant for identification purposes, and Mrs.

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton (Slip Opinion)

166 Ohio St. 3d 266 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2021

These facts establish that Morton acted with reckless disregard for the truth of his accusations. … Chief Justice O’Connor, Justice French, and I were not asked to provide testimony to establish that Morton’s statements had no basis in fact, and I cannot use my own knowledge of my motivations to establish a fact not proven

State v. Cunningham

105 Ohio St. 3d 197 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2004

’s testimony was merely cumulative of other evidence establishing Cunningham’s guilt. … The love and support of Cunningham’s family also qualify as “other factor[s]” and are entitled to some weight.